If no one in their right mind reads Genesis 1-3 literally, the same goes for Romans 13:
. . . even when people agree that the Bible is indeed affirming/teaching, there is no guarantee that behavior will match the creed (as in the case of Jesus’ teachings).
What’s got me thinking about this is Romans 13:1-7. There Paul famously wrote what can be nothing other than a number of quite clear and striking affirmations and teachings about God, the government, and what that means for the rest of us plebes.
If I may summarize Paul: The governing authorities have been instituted by God and to resist these authorities is to resist God. If you conduct yourself well, you have nothing to fear. If you do what is wrong, you will feel the brunt of their authority, since they do not bear the sword in vain, do they? Of course not. The authorities are God’s servants.
It sounds to me like Paul is affirming and teaching something.
I also think there are major problems with taking Paul’s words as a binding affirmation/teaching.
I don’t need to draw you all a map. No one who is an American citizen thinks Paul’s words are binding, given how our country was founded in rebellion to the governing authorities.
Is Pete kidding? Hasn’t he heard of 2k or A2k? If he only reads biblical studies literature, has he ever heard of Meredith Kline?
Enns goes on to quote Timothy Johnson for support:
Paul cannot be held responsible for his practical advice later taken as divine revelation and as the basis for a Christian theology of state. That is too much weight for a few words of contingent remarks to bear. . . . Simply “reading it off the page” as a directive for life is to misread it and to distort it, for the world in which it made self-evident sense no longer exists and never can.
Enns explains:
Clear affirmations/teachings, just like everything else in the Bible, need to be seen in context. And in doing so we may come to see that when the Bible is affirming/teaching something, that does not mean it is binding. It may mean that is not longer is.
I wonder if Enns understands the context in which he writes these words and that he has now given aid and comfort to transformationalists and theonomists. Or could it be that Paul was really requiring something of believers, just like Pope Peter who wrote, “honor the emperor”?
Old Life 
I don’t think you realize the silent plurality that holds the 2K view.
It’s born of practical and mundane experience. On one side of me, I have a family of Jehovah’s Witnesses as neighbors, on the other an unchurched family both of whom are stellar neighbors. No one proselytizes. In addition to the alert to self-preservation that State as Church calls one to (be you protestant or roman catholic as power centers change) the alert of preservation of one’s neighbors follows closely. “Of all men who go bad, when religious men go bad, they’re the worst.” Best approximation of Lewis’ thought.
Calvinists and other believing Christians will be fine. To live a quiet life of faith is not cowardice, it’s faith. And one can only pray that if a persecution should come (and I’m not talking scorn, that’s not persecution) Christians will be found ready as the martyrs were.
That the world is listening less and less to the Christian account of creation and redemption is not something that can be controlled. Probably too many Christians view the account as “the greatest story every told,” as opposed to being convicted of its truth. So the only avenue open to the Christian who sincerely desires to make an impact on the good is on the side of ordered liberty.
Fallibilist Christians who have all the other attributes necessary for living a decently ordered life will not find the future inhospitable. “To live by faith and not by sight” is much more of a fallibilist mindset than not.
LikeLike
It’s also the way the egalitarians reason to ordain the fairer sex–Paul didn’t have the advantage of modern understandings of how wives relate to husbands or how citizens are to relate to their governments so he can’t be taken at face value. Do the macho anti-2k resistance theorists realize they give aid to the egalitarians? Maybe it takes wimpy 2kers to help.
LikeLike
Enns: “I don’t need to draw you all a map. No one who is an American citizen thinks Paul’s words are binding, given how our country was founded in rebellion to the governing authorities.”
I’m an American citizen and I think Paul’s words are binding.
Enns: “I know many Christians who are more than willing to take these words of Paul as a clear and binding “teaching”–that is, as long as their guy is in the White House.”
My guy is not in the White House, but I *still* take Paul’s words as a clear and binding teaching (was Enn’s using scare quotes there or was he just being sarcastic?)
Enns: “The truth is, I don’t know many Christians who take Paul at his word here.”
I do.
This appears to be Enns running with a torch through a field of straw men (I don’t recall who said that, maybe WFB?). It is an odd form of reasoning: because there are Christians who try to wiggle out of passages that interfere with the way they see things, then inerrancy is wrong. Or something like that. Why not just say the obvious: If Christians do not take Paul’s words in Romans 13 seriously, then they are inconsistent with their own stated beliefs.
Is Enns ever inconsistent with his own stated beliefs? That by itself does not make his beliefs about Scripture illegitimate.
LikeLike
M.L. – Calvinists and other believing Christians will be fine. To live a quiet life of faith is not cowardice, it’s faith. And one can only pray that if a persecution should come (and I’m not talking scorn, that’s not persecution) Christians will be found ready as the martyrs were.
Erik – Well said.
LikeLike
If you don’t take Paul at his word, guess who you are acting like is the apostle directly appointed by Christ? You.
LikeLike
Darryl, why the slam against transformationalists (other than it’s habitual). Why can’t a transformationalist work within the constraints of Romans 13? Besides if the civil magistrate is carrying out societal justice, it’s already transformed.
LikeLike
Geoff, I believe Pete has a certain felicity with straw.
LikeLike
Terry, because Paul, in case you didn’t notice, was not calling for societal transformation. He knew it couldn’t happen. If you do, you must have voted for Bush.
LikeLike
Why can’t we think that the American Revolution was in fact an unjustified rebellion, but then say, well, I’ve been born in this America, so it is to that government I owe taxes and obedience? It was not I who unjustly rebelled.
Not too different than Greeks or Asians living in territory unjustly conquered by Rome. Yet Paul says to obey the earthly authorities you find yourself under. Huh.
BTW, for an example of what can happen when Christians conflate kingdoms, take a look at what happened to the pastor of Independent Presbyterian in Savannah, GA (Zubly I think it was), when he opposed violence against the crown. They voted him out and burned his house down.
LikeLike
I’m confused. Is he saying that hermeneutics is somehow incompatible with inerrancy? Or that inerrancy entails the absence of idiom, hyperbole, and other non-literal figures of speech? Or that inerrancy entails that all of scripture is equally plain to everybody (and easy to live with?)?
LikeLike
Is civil disobedience neutral, sinful, or praiseworthy in the eternal aspect?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted April 28, 2014 at 2:59 pm | Permalink
Terry, because Paul, in case you didn’t notice, was not calling for societal transformation. He knew it couldn’t happen. If you do, you must have voted for Bush.
A lot got better between the Roman Empire and Bush, Dr. Historian.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2014/04/rodney-starks-debunkathon-how-west-won.html
LikeLike
vd, t, no it didn’t, Mr. Disagreeable who defends Roman Catholics over against Calvinists.
LikeLike
sdb, I think he’s saying he’s the smartest guy in the room.
LikeLike
vd, c, can’t you tell yourself? Are you that bishop dependent?
LikeLike
dgh, must be a very small room!
LikeLike
Darryl,
I have my thoughts. I am curious as to your or your cohorts’ views given your stance on transformationalism.
LikeLike
vd, c, I believe Zrim and Jed have lost their friendship over this one. Zrim says civil disobedience is sinful, Jed says its permitted. Jed gets no respect from vd, t (but who does?).
LikeLike
Darryl,
But what do you say? Let’s take obvious example – civil rights movement. I take it you would not approve of a pastor at that time recommending his congregation participate in marches or civil disruptions. But I also take it you would not approve of a pastor being indifferent on racial inequality/oppression – I presume you would approve of his preaching against racism, but not endorsing political/civil action and rather leaving that for each member to decide on his own correct? I would assume a similar view applies in today’s climate with abortion.
Now if you were a pastor at that time and one of your members got involved in civil disobedience related to the movement and let you know, what would you say to him? That he’s being sinful and needs to stop? Or that what he’s doing is permissible but not wonderful? Or you would say he is doing something praiseworthy in the eyes of God and give him a pat on the back? If the second two options, how is that not somehow subject to your criticisms of transformationalism?
LikeLike
Cletus, since you mention you want to hear perhaps from “cohorts,” note that the OPC does not shy away from making public declarations when she feels a particular situation warrants it.
But while we’re shooting off the cuff, getting all curious about peoples’ opinions, I wonder what your priest would think if he knew you were hanging out in protestant blog chat rooms, posing as a TV character.
Peace.
LikeLike
vd, c, I wouldn’t preach on racism. I could preach on unbiblical exclusion from the house of God (think James), but racism is an application that I would not make (especially since race is such a charged notion in our society). I don’t do application beyond what Scripture does or what the Standards allow.
And I would encourage a civil rights protester to honor his or her calling as much as I would instruct a police officer patrolling the protests to be faithful in his calling.
You seem to think God has a side in this. He does. He’s on the side of justice and on the side of order and applying that in a fallen situation among fallen people (saved and lost) is always going to involve moral compromise.
In the church it’s different. But you have trouble with that since you still pine for the pope as prince.
LikeLike
Jed and I never had a friendship–that’s impossible on the webbernet. But despite our differences, he still gives me plumbing and medication advice.
CvD, what Darryl said. I’d only add that I’ve yet to hear a proponent of civil disobedience make a compelling biblical case for it.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“And I would encourage a civil rights protester to honor his or her calling as much as I would instruct a police officer patrolling the protests to be faithful in his calling.”
We have freedom of speech and assembly – those are not against the law – they are lawful avenues in which to oppose and try to change laws and at worst you spend a night in jail and need some eyewash (unless the officer is not faithful in his calling and engages in brutality). But sometimes using only those avenues to oppose laws/policy in American society is not sufficient for change. And in many other countries and in history, the oppressed do not have the luxury of our political rights and must break the law. Would you counsel an army officer in another time/country commanded by law/policy to gun down or brutally beat down a group of non-violent protesters to honor his or her calling? If not, isn’t that starting to sneak in transformationalism?
And if you were trapped in a theocratic society, how do you fight for society/government reflecting 2k sensibilities if that same sensibility precludes such a fight for transformationalism? Is it more god-honoring to fight for such a change, or instead to just try to leave the country rather than resist/disobey the laws?
“You seem to think God has a side in this. He does. He’s on the side of justice and on the side of order and applying that in a fallen situation among fallen people (saved and lost) is always going to involve moral compromise.”
Agreed – transformationalists I would think freely acknowledge fallenness and necessity of compromise, but they would also recognize He’s on the side of justice as you say and think they are hence obligated to fight for such. Life is always going to involve death, doesn’t mean a person doesn’t fight for and transform their health even though that will pass away.
LikeLike
Zrim,
“CvD, what Darryl said. I’d only add that I’ve yet to hear a proponent of civil disobedience make a compelling biblical case for it.”
But Darryl also said:
“And I would encourage a civil rights protester to honor his or her calling”
So would you encourage or not? Or perhaps you have a spectrum – protesting in a state-approved “protest zone” (like Russia had for the Olympics) or standing outside abortion mill is cool, but anything that might result in actual law resistance (arrests, trespassing, etc) is off-limits?
LikeLike
Is there any merit in the observation that God sometimes raises up bad leaders because he is judging the people that are being led? And if that’s the case, does God want people to rise up against those leaders (even peacefully) or does he want them to suffer under the bad leaders and repent of their own sins.
Do people (as a group, not necessarily as every single individual) usually get the leaders they deserve?
LikeLike
vd, c, Scripture says to obey the law. It doesn’t say change society.
But I stop with the Bible. You guys get to make it up as you go.
LikeLike
CvD, I would encourage obeying the law and discourage disobeying it. I would also discourage unbecoming public behavior even if the law allows it–there are better ways to politically agitate for one’s convictions than taking it to the streets. Adult behavior beats adolescent tantrum.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Scripture also says love your neighbor and not to neglect the weightier matters of the law. Can one not deduce a distinction between just and unjust laws/society from Scripture by good and necessary consequence? I’ll ask again since your answers might shed light: Would you counsel an army officer in another time/country commanded by law/policy to gun down or brutally beat down a group of non-violent protesters to honor his or her calling? If not, isn’t that starting to sneak in transformationalism?
And if you were trapped in a theocratic society, how do you fight for society/government reflecting 2k sensibilities if that same sensibility precludes such a fight for transformationalism? Is it more god-honoring to fight for such a change, or instead to just try to leave the country rather than resist/disobey the laws?
Zrim,
Your thoughts sound nice in good ole western America. I’m wondering if those in oppressive dictatorial and autocratic regimes today throughout history would find such solace in them. I must be misunderstanding because I cannot believe you would stand by as someone’s family is lawfully brutalized in such a society because they resisted oppressive laws saying “well that’s the law and you need to obey it – see these guys brutalizing you are”. I cannot believe you would tell Nazis where Jews were hiding or refuse them safe harbor. Examples abound where obeying the laws of society can conflict with gospel commands – there almost seems to be a legalistic endorsement of obedience to government/society in the criticism of transformationalism.
LikeLike
CvD, aw shucks. But you’re right, you are missing something. I don’t know how you get the idea that standing by while others are brutalized is the point. The point isn’t whether to engage politically but how to engage. Still, at least I have words of solace for those who are unjustly brutalized:
Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.
LikeLike
vd, c, I wouldn’t counsel a patrolmen to beat anyone up — period. But that’s not my reading the Bible. It’s DG being DG.
Where is any of this going? What’s the point?
I’m no transformationalist — either as a U.S. citizen or as a Christian (which according to your church I am not).
LikeLike
Zrim,
“I don’t know how you get the idea that standing by while others are brutalized is the point. The point isn’t whether to engage politically but how to engage.”
Yes, and how do you engage when those being brutalized are being brutalized by policy/laws and their enforcement? Just standing and offering your words? Those words are comforting to those suffering or being oppressed – many are not in control of their situation or circumstances (or of course can heroically put themselves in that situation voluntarily). But I do not see how that means they should not therefore be justified in resisting law/policy that is causing that oppression. Is everyone supposed to be a martyr in your perspective in order to honor God and not try to engage? Are the only options – suffer/accept your oppression, or lawfully flee the country – just whatever you do don’t disobey the law/society? I do not see how that does not reduce to legalism in light of gospel commands.
Darryl,
“vd, c, I wouldn’t counsel a patrolmen to beat anyone up — period. But that’s not my reading the Bible. It’s DG being DG.”
What if he was a christian member of your church and the society’s laws/policies commanded him to do so? Would you counsel him to disobey or obey in honoring God?
“Where is any of this going? What’s the point? I’m no transformationalist ”
I know you’re not a transformationalist. I’m just wondering how your criticisms of it, and your criticisms of Enns here concerning governing authorities and obedience line up with obvious examples that seem to indicate gospel commands can necessitate disobedience/rebellion/activism for change – i.e. how you can disparage transformationalism without also sneaking it in at other times – maybe you don’t sneak it in though, that’s why I asked my questions.
LikeLike
Cletus, why did you pick the TV show character Shane Vendrell?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted April 30, 2014 at 6:53 am | Permalink
vd, c, I believe Zrim and Jed have lost their friendship over this one. Zrim says civil disobedience is sinful, Jed says its permitted. Jed gets no respect from vd, t (but who does?).
Wrong again, Dr. Dirty Mouth. Jed is fine by me. So is Mr. Z, in sum. Agreement is secondary to decency. Try it sometime.
LikeLike
CvD, what I initially said to you was that I’ve yet to see from an advocate of civil resistance a compelling biblical case for it. I take it you are such an advocate, but I see no attempt to make a biblical case. From where I sit, the Bible only ever enjoins believers to obey the civil authorities until they compel believers to violate God’s explicit commands, e.g. the moral law or the witness of Christ, at which time they are to obey God instead of men. I still don’t see how this implies disengagement or legalism.
You say there are “obvious examples that seem to indicate gospel commands can necessitate disobedience/rebellion/activism for change.” What are these so-called “gospel commands” that demand rebellion? Have you read the NT?
LikeLike
vd, c, obeying God’s word is not the same thing as transforming society. Plenty of examples in Scripture where faithfulness not only doesn’t change anything but gets you killed. I don’t believe having more order in my office, laying off a second helping, or waiting for a slow driver has anything to do with redemption or social transformation. And I still don’t understand why you ask.
LikeLike
zrim, remember vd, c doesn’t need the Bible. He has an infallible bishop.
LikeLike
Cletus, do you like reading books? A lot of history of your church is discussed here, and if you have a library system like mine here, this book is free, ready for you to start reading. Clearly an indication of where separation of church and state is good, where the people should have rebelled against the fascists, and where 2k would have helped the Roman church not play the damaging role that she did in that period of history.
LikeLike
Zrim,
“From where I sit, the Bible only ever enjoins believers to obey the civil authorities until they compel believers to violate God’s explicit commands, e.g. the moral law or the witness of Christ, at which time they are to obey God instead of men.”
Right, so I fail to see how you then think there is no biblical case for civil resistance when you just said there is. Perhaps you mean there is no biblical case for ongoing perpetual anarchy, but of course no one would argue that. Or perhaps you mean there is no case for public resistance, just private/personal. Part of the moral law is loving one’s neighbor. Accomplishing that may have to include trying to change society/government through non-lawful disobedient means.
“What are these so-called “gospel commands” that demand rebellion?”
I’ll ask obvious questions again – would you help hide or get Jews out of Nazi Germany if in such a position, or just obey laws and government like a good obedient citizen? Were Protestants justified in privately and publicly rebelling against Catholic governments and their policies/laws? These are obvious examples which is why I am sure I must be misunderstanding you but instead of clarifying you just keep beating the drums.
“I still don’t see how this implies disengagement or legalism.”
It implies disengagement/legalism if you think the only “god-honoring” way to engage civil oppression is to heroically and virtuously endure it, or to only resist via lawful means (i.e. fleeing, protesting through state-approved channels, voting/writing if such rights are afforded by society, etc.), and that otherwise you are being a disobedient sinful rebel.
Darryl,
“I don’t believe having more order in my office, laying off a second helping, or waiting for a slow driver has anything to do with redemption or social transformation.”
Way to continue thinking in your modern insulated western suburban American culture. I’m asking you to put yourself in other situations and contexts both historically and today.
And further, I’ll ask again – if you were trapped in a theocratic society, how do you fight for society/government reflecting 2k sensibilities if that same sensibility precludes such a fight for transformationalism? Is it more god-honoring to fight for such a change, or instead to just try to leave the country rather than resist/disobey the laws?
AB,
I do not think all transformationalists are hoping for a theocracy or consider separation of church and state is bad. Some might of course.
LikeLike
Cletus, given the option between following my 2k sensibilities, or following the moral law, I’ll stick with the latter. 2k is supported by our confessions (in my opinion), but we flesh out what the 10 commandments mean in great detail. I don’t see why this is so hard to get, but I don’t really get your fascination with this website, just as I don’t get victor, delta, tango’s either. Just remember, the moral law trumps 2k, and you’ll be fine.
Now the ones who actually know their stuff swoop in and correct me. But seriously, Van Drunen is the man to read, and I’m still working through my copy of lost soul. Enjoy whatever good books you can get your hands on, yo.
LikeLike
In other words, Clete, you can create a situation where a state is disobedient to the moral law (can you say our modern U Ess of A), and the church has a responsibility to speak up. The genius of 2k, in my opinion, is the preservation of the idea of spirituality of the church. The point in bringing up pre-WWII and Pius the XI, is to show where your church, even well into the 20th century, didn’t get this, and wound up doing more harm than good. It’s no accident our confessions devote a chapter about the civil magistrate (chapter 23). These issues are dealt with at length there, as well, and have been mulled over formally since at least 1646 in our circles. The more you read about us, don’t be surprised you come to like more of what you find. There’s an attraction to 2k that can’t be denied. I’ve said to much, friend. Peace.
LikeLike
victor delta, charlie, “Way to continue thinking in your modern insulated western suburban American culture.”
Well whose the modernist call the modern modern? I am actually trying to think the way the apostles apparently did (I know, you have better information on what they thought, all that pssst, oral tradition). But someone could argue that all this language of fight the system is much more Marxist or Revolutionary (in a 1776/1789 way) than my following Paul on submitting to the God-ordained authority.
While I’m at I will fight. Get off your self-righteous soapbox about fighting injustice. Why don’t you fight some in your own hierarchical and hardly equitable communion.
LikeLike
Right, so I fail to see how you then think there is no biblical case for civil resistance when you just said there is.
CvD, when I say there is no biblical case for civil resistence I mean there is no case for it ordinarily. Modern sensibilities seem to assume that not liking the way an authority rules or is brutal is grounds enough to resist or disobey. The Bible opposes this ethic; believers are to obey even when they don’t like or disagree with an authority, even an authority that is brutal. The only time it allows for an exception is when an authority compels a believer to do that which is expressly contradictory to God’s commands. And I understand it’s a matter of semantics, but even then it is framed as obeying God—the Bible never condones DISobedience of any sort.
I’ll ask obvious questions again – would you help hide or get Jews out of Nazi Germany if in such a position, or just obey laws and government like a good obedient citizen? Were Protestants justified in privately and publicly rebelling against Catholic governments and their policies/laws? These are obvious examples which is why I am sure I must be misunderstanding you but instead of clarifying you just keep beating the drums.
I don’t answer questions that ask me to teleport across time and place and say what I would do as a completely de-contextualized human being, especially those that involve deeply seated assumptions about the inherent righteousness of 21st century Americans and intrinsic evil of 20th century Germans (the propaganda machine still at work). Call it drum beating if you want, but I’m painting in broad strokes for a reason.
It implies disengagement/legalism if you think the only “god-honoring” way to engage civil oppression is to heroically and virtuously endure it, or to only resist via lawful means (i.e. fleeing, protesting through state-approved channels, voting/writing if such rights are afforded by society, etc.), and that otherwise you are being a disobedient sinful rebel.
Or I’m following Peter who says it is virtuous to endure unjust authorities. If it helps, I don’t like it much either, but that seems to be his point, namely that which is counter-intuitive to the flesh is what pleases God (think Jesus in the Garden). And I’m not calling anybody a “disobedient sinful rebel.” Sheesh, dial it down, Mr. Soapbox. I’m simply making the point that the Bible doesn’t condone disobedience, and I’ve yet to hear you make the biblical case for it.
LikeLike
AB,
I like aspects of 2k. Erik and Darryl and Zrim make good points against Alexander and Terrry. I just don’t agree with the take-no-prisoners nuking anti-2k and transformationalism gets here all the time. But it could be because of my misunderstanding – hence my questions to Zrim and Darryl.
“Just remember, the moral law trumps 2k, and you’ll be fine.”
Exactly right. “Transformationalism” or other social gospel hybrids need not be conflated with reconstructionism/theonomy or theocracy or the dissolution of the separation of church and state (though obviously it can lead to that as well).
Darryl,
” Get off your self-righteous soapbox about fighting injustice.”
Yes because 2k’ers cannot get self-righteous about 2k or obeying authority and fighting/mocking the evil muddle-headed transformationalists. Christians opposed to abolitionism or later the civil rights movement probably would’ve loved to have your arguments in their arsenal and I do not see where you would be justified in denying them.
Zrim,
“The Bible opposes this ethic; believers are to obey even when they don’t like or disagree with an authority, even an authority that is brutal. The only time it allows for an exception is when an authority compels a believer to do that which is expressly contradictory to God’s commands.”
Bingo and the heart of the matter. I do not see why you think transformationalists should not see or consider economic injustice, exploitation of people, intentional/reckless destruction of environment/health, torture/killing/terror of communities, etc. that are entrenched or promoted in civil structures/policies as expressly contradictory to God’s commands.
“I don’t answer questions that ask me to teleport across time and place and say what I would do as a completely de-contextualized human being, especially those that involve deeply seated assumptions about the inherent righteousness of 21st century Americans and intrinsic evil of 20th century Germans (the propaganda machine still at work). Call it drum beating if you want, but I’m painting in broad strokes for a reason.”
I’m surprised at this. You seriously won’t engage obvious examples because you don’t think you can fairly assess the contexts? I’ll ask it differently – who do you think would utilize your arguments/position better in the civil rights movement – christian leaders opposed to it or for it? And of course I wasn’t painting all 20th century Germans as intrinsically evil – but if you actually want to defend the Holocaust, have at it. I really don’t understand how that’s importing 21st century assumptions of righteousness. The Holocaust and related policies were bad. So is abortion now (so much for our inherent righteousness). Not groundbreaking.
“I’m simply making the point that the Bible doesn’t condone disobedience, and I’ve yet to hear you make the biblical case for it.”
The case I’m making is the same you are: “The only time it allows for an exception is when an authority compels a believer to do that which is expressly contradictory to God’s commands.” You don’t like the way transformationalists might interpret that, but I’ve yet to hear the biblical case for it.
LikeLike
victor delta, charlie, disagreement is not self-righteous, but then you come from a church where everyone “agrees.”
Still, you didn’t really address the point of whether your speaking truth to power is more of a modern or medieval disposition. You did claim that my view was oh so modern. Since Thomas didn’t advocate resisting tyranny, I may be more Roman Catholic than you.
LikeLike
Bingo and the heart of the matter. I do not see why you think transformationalists should not see or consider economic injustice, exploitation of people, intentional/reckless destruction of environment/health, torture/killing/terror of communities, etc. that are entrenched or promoted in civil structures/policies as expressly contradictory to God’s commands.
First, because those are all of those things are subject to interpretation. Second, because it’s not clear in any of it that anybody is being personally compelled to trespass explicitly revealed laws. So the minimum wage is too high or not high enough, depending on whom you ask. So what? Nobody’s being compelled to steal or kill, unless you’re one of those “taxes are a form of theft” types.
I’ll ask it differently – who do you think would utilize your arguments/position better in the civil rights movement – christian leaders opposed to it or for it? And of course I wasn’t painting all 20th century Germans as intrinsically evil – but if you actually want to defend the Holocaust, have at it. I really don’t understand how that’s importing 21st century assumptions of righteousness. The Holocaust and related policies were bad. So is abortion now (so much for our inherent righteousness). Not groundbreaking.
Neither those in favor of or opposed to civil rights would be in favor of 2k views, I’d imagine, because to the extent that 2k is about bringing more agnosticism to the power of politics the politically enthused rarely are. If you think the point is to defend Holocaust, your charity-o-meter is off. But as a thought experiment, can you imagine middle eastern Christians thinking expansionist American policies as just as insidious as anything the Third Reich came up with? For every American Christian who makes the ostensibly religious case for exporting America (even waterboarding terrorists) there could be a middle eastern believer who would that the Bible condemns our entire way of western life. Both want to hijack the Bible for their political views. And so my point about how complicated these questions are (as opposed to your hifalutin theory that they are so damn obvious). “Abortion is bad now.” What’s that even mean? You mean local powers aren’t able to govern themselves on this question, or it should be outlawed in every nook and cranny of the union and world, or what?
The case I’m making is the same you are: “The only time it allows for an exception is when an authority compels a believer to do that which is expressly contradictory to God’s commands.” You don’t like the way transformationalists might interpret that, but I’ve yet to hear the biblical case for it.
And I’ve yet to hear a biblical case for civil disobedience (which is how this exchange started). Evidently you think it’s all so obvious, as if heaven has a perfectly discernible opinion on just how economic policies or reproductive legislation should be politically addressed and settled. Maybe, but it’s not known to us.
LikeLike
Yeah, there are smart dudes who hang out here, listen to them. Drop me a line, if you want, in order to borrow my kindle copy of Living in God’s Two Kingdoms by Dr. VanDrunen. He made it a “loanable” product. If you like the stuff here, there’s only more good stuff if you know where to look. Peace out.
LikeLike
Zrim,
“And so my point about how complicated these questions are (as opposed to your hifalutin theory that they are so damn obvious).”
Except what’s not complicated is your catch-all “don’t ever disobey the government/society/laws unless your commanded to disobey God, but since it’s complicated to know that, you probably won’t ever be justified in doing so”. I didn’t say all of it was damn obvious. But some of it sure is. Is it complicated to know whether or not a guy in WW2 hiding or helping Jews escape is god-honoring over the one who hands them over? Or a soldier of a totalitarian regime who refused his orders to wipe out a group of unarmed peaceful protesters? Is it complicated to know that abolition and the civil rights movement are more god-honoring than racism and chattel slavery? Is it complicated to know that it is more god-honoring to teach/help Christians in hiding in oppressive nations today than to just hand them over or let them languish?
” “Abortion is bad now.” What’s that even mean? You mean local powers aren’t able to govern themselves on this question, or it should be outlawed in every nook and cranny of the union and world, or what?”
If you were born in China and your wife is pregnant with second child but you had opportunity to circumvent detection, is it sinful to do that and resist the state instead of permitting the state to abort it? Is the latter more god-honoring? Then extend that, is it more god-honoring to try to fight for policy change in that area or to just let it be?
“as if heaven has a perfectly discernible opinion on just how economic policies or reproductive legislation should be politically addressed and settled. Maybe, but it’s not known to us.”
No, as I said to AB, some can take transformationalism to theonomy/reconstructionist type levels. Some can become wacko types. I am not arguing to dissolve the separation of church and state or to outline “christian” economics and “christian” energy policy. What I am arguing is that the condemnation of civil resistance and disobedience seems entirely too broad and general. As touched on above, I presume your church/denom has missionaries. What if some of them wanted to go to oppressive anti-christian nations/societies – they would be subverting government and the civil policies/structures – is that god-honoring? Are such nations/societies off-limits to missionaries because they would be disobeying the authorities? If they were then caught and subject to incarceration, torture, or death but there was a way to illegally get them out of the country, would you not take all available measures to get them out, even though you are clearly disobeying the political and civil policies there by doing so?
LikeLike
Cvd has discovered that each issue makes for tough law.
Congrats, must be a big day for you in your mental development.
LikeLike
CvD, you’ll probably hate this but yes, those situations are fairly complicated and not so obvious. I don’t see any explicit command in the Bible about what to do with fugitives in my attic who by my turning may or may not be unjustly executed, or how questions revolving around slavery or civil rights in the modern context should be sorted out. And so what I think is that there is liberty for those who may have different convictions from mine on all of it. I’d suppose there are times when I’d like to say my political views on, say, civil rights or abortion are also heaven’s and anybody who doesn’t share them is *obviously* politically satanic, but my theology doesn’t allow it.
I understand you’re arguing that the condemnation of civil resistance and disobedience seems entirely too broad and general. But, and sorry to sound like a broken record, what I am waiting for is the biblical case for any form of disobedience. You still haven’t made any effort to this effect. I know there are philosophical, historical, and political arguments, but what’s the biblical one?
LikeLike
Scripture states:
Be obedient, there is no fear in duoing right
If you do wrong there is no special reward in accepting the infliction of the punishment
Expect and count it a part of your faith that you will be unjustly persecuted and suffer, and do so joyfully…
May we have the strength to meet any and all situations in a Christ-like manner.
LikeLike
victor delta, charlie, “Is it complicated to know whether or not a guy in WW2 hiding or helping Jews escape is god-honoring over the one who hands them over? Or a soldier of a totalitarian regime who refused his orders to wipe out a group of unarmed peaceful protesters? Is it complicated to know that abolition and the civil rights movement are more god-honoring than racism and chattel slavery? Is it complicated to know that it is more god-honoring to teach/help Christians in hiding in oppressive nations today than to just hand them over or let them languish?”
Still sounding like a modern rational autonomous self?
In point of fact, you can find all sorts of complications in the obvious goods you string together in those questions.
But if they are as obvious as you imply, why are they Christian or transformative. Doesn’t everyone see this? So why with your namesake victor delta, tango, worry about old life?
The problem you still haven’t solved is finding a biblical justification for any of your obvious forms of resistance. Find your inner Protestant.
LikeLike